Talk:Torture chamber/Archive 1

Archive 1

Whose insane analogy is it in "Chambers as torture outlets" that compares torture to a medication. Attribute it to whatever loon came up with it, or remove it. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, nothing at all is attributed in the article, which has at present no citations. The tone needs work/cleanup as well; it sounds like someone's pontificating rather than conveing information. - Nunh-huh 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your tone is not conducive to any meaningful discussion. There is no reason to use such terms. The analogy is used to indicate that torture has a forcibly calming effect on the oppressed population. Same as a tranqullizer in a person. If you don't understand this then there is no reason to discuss this any further. Dr.K. 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as citations are concerned, I just started the article. I didn't even have time to finish it before being slapped by all these tags. This is no way to encourage creativity and new article writing in Wikipedia. Dr.K. 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Creativity is actively discouraged. Articles are not essays: they should incorporate the opinions of recognized experts rather than your own. - 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But the analogy refers to an artificial "calming" effect through fear of the oppressed population. You don't have to be an expert to recognize that. 10:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to be an expert to get your opinions in a Wikipedia article. -- Nunh-huh 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone?

This article sounds way too philosophical. The tone is inappropriate for Wikipedia - it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I've added an Essay-entry template. -Maelin 00:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Film section is particularly bad. Also, a quick Google for "torture chamber paradox" yields no hits at all. Without citations, this counts as Original research. -Maelin 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your points, can you suggest a few changes? What's wrong with the film section? Also the paradox is a logical fact. That noone has pointed this out in so many words doesn't invalidate it imo. If we had to google every single header section in Wikipedia I'm sure we would find many similar blanks. Dr.K. 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is a repository of factual information, whilst this article reads more like philosophical musings on torture chambers. The film section is the strongest example. Such a section should probably just mention notable torture chambers in film history. This one, however, seems more like a Film Studies discussion of film and torture chambers. Sentences like "Movies are analogous to dreams" really have no place in Wikipedia. In fact, I'm unconvinced a "film" section is really appropriate in the article unless the appearances of torture chambers in films have been significant in public culture. An example would be if a film featuring a torture chamber was controversial as a result of its appearance.

Secondly, the paradox is also too philosophical. An article about torture chambers should not discuss the philosophical issues of dictatorial governments - for one, philosophy, if mentioned at all, should only be described, not argued. People come to Wikipedia articles to learn about their topics, not to be presented with philosophical arguments. The way the paradox is presented makes it appear to be a documented phenomenon. If I could go to a well-educated philosopher and say, "What is the torture chamber paradox?" and be given an answer, it would be appropriate. But Wikipedia is not the place to present your own new ideas, even if they are just new phrases for old ideas.

Finally, a lot of this philosophical musing on torture, if it really does belong somewhere in WP, belongs in the torture article. This chambers article, moreso than the torture article, should be concerned with practicalities of torture, not philosophical considerations. For more information, try What Wikipedia is not and the Guide to writing better articles. Good luck! -Maelin

Thanks for the links. Believe me I've seen them before. I can, however see your point about trying to be philosophical on some sections. To cut to the chase I edited this article so as to save it from oblivion. It was ready to depart to Wiktionary. I thought that it belonged here as it is also linked to many other articles here. I am not an expert on torture, neither quite frankly I want to be. I don't even like the subject! But I think that the torture chamber provides the context for torture. It's the forensic evidence that torture took place. If a chamber existed so did torture. That's why I wanted to keep the article here. So that people don't think that torture is some abstract idea. The Nazi chambers are a physical manifestation of torture in the Nazi era. This can't be denied as long as the chambers exist. Same goes for Pinochet, Ioannides et al. So it is necessary as long as there is a Torture article then there must also exist a chamber one. I don't like writing about movies either, even though I do like going to them. So why don't you try your luck editing the article yourself. I appreciate your courtesy to install the tags so that I have the chance to edit the article first, but if you don't like the paradox section, well, delete it. Same goes for the film section. Good luck! Dr.K. 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. I don't think that the whole Film section should be deleted. For example the Torture article refers to the Hostel movie. I think this reference should appear in the chamber article as well, that's why I included it. Same goes for the other movies currently there. It is necessary to include them because they demonstrate the impact of the torture chambers on popular culture. Popular culture is an echo of society's conceptualization of torture. Dr.K. 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Maelin for your constructive criticism. Even more for your constructive and polite criticism. I am impressed. Given that you are a new Wikipedian your tone and cadence in criticising an article are remarkable. If you would like I would like to nominate you as an administrator. To put it in layman's terms you are a Natural. Thanks again. Dr.K. 12:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary, but thanks for the offer. Wikipedia already diverts too much time from my studies, I don't need responsibilities to take more *grin*. -Maelin 11:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this article seems to be a listing of personal observations. ("the Memory Address of Torture"? please!) Just accreting more of this stuff is not addressing the concerns to which you have now been alerted more than once. If this is to stay, it needs to be cleaned up, not added to. Please don't remove the tags until someone other than yourself agrees that the concerns have been addressed. - Nunh-huh 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I Think I cleaned this up according to the concerns expressed in the past and I have extensively edited it. If you don't like this memory address analogy which modernizes the article content fine. My concern is that once you slapped the tag it will remain there forever since noone will feel concerned enough to remove it other than the parties involved in the dispute. I can take the memory address sentence out. Do you have any other suggestions for cleanup so that we can finish this Marathon? Dr.K. 18:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the point of the tag. It remains until someone other than you thinks the problem is resolved. Obviously you saw no problem in the first place, so you are hardly the person to determine when the problem you couldn't see is resolved. Please don't remove it again. Someone else will remove it when the problem has been solved. My suggestion: you seem a bit too involved to be able to clean up this article. Let others do it. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The things remaining are all facts with citations. How can this be an essay? Dr.K. 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the essay-entry template because the article is encyclopedic now. If anybody feels up to doing some research, the Torture chambers through history section could use some more information, perhaps on famous torture chambers of ancient castles, etc. -Maelin 11:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin or point of the term?

This article suffers from a lack of focus: there's no obvious reason why there should be an article saying that sometimes torture happens in rooms. Now there must be something to the term --- after all, using "chamber" for room is obsolete and "torture chamber" has clearly been retained in the language for some special reason. Perhaps some work of literature or politics keeps it in currency? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge / redirect

I propose merging/redirecting this article to the main torture article. This article is mostly just a poor quality fork of our principal treatment of the topic; and it adds little of value to it beyond the trivial observation that torture often takes place in a room. (Really, who would have thought?) – Most of what this article says is really just a random collection of instances of torture through history, and as such it deals with the activity itself rather than with anything noteworthy about the rooms it takes place in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The concept of the torture chamber has undeniable diachronic presence in the English language and culture as a stand-alone concept. As such it has its own historical presence and carries semantic connotations quite distinct from the concept of torture. As far as it being a trivial observation because torture is carried out in a room or not, this is a matter of opinion that depends on respecting the cultural/historical evolution of the concept itself. I disagree with the assesment of the concept as trivial based on its historical, semantic, linguistic and cultural presence. Dr.K. logos 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, if there is so much of cultural connotations of the locality as such, why is the article saying so little about it? I commend you for your efforts of improving the article, but still: The material added to the "methods of coercion" section is again about the activity, not about the locality, and would thus belong into the main torture article; the following section on the Avignon palace is sourced to an outdated reference of dubious reliability; some other references in the existing material probably need scrutiny to (e.g. the Riquewihr tower – the "authenticity" of such modern museums is often heavily dubious; whether that museum tower is really an "authentic" torture chamber would require a lot better sourcing than a passing remark in a tourist guide webpage; all in all, the article still strikes me as a rather random collection of factbites without much cohesion – like a cultural history of torture randomly reduced to just those bits where the relevant sources mentioned the word "chamber". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments about improving the article. First the cultural presence of the concept of "torture chamber" is established by the examples that are included in the article, such as in technology, books, film etc. They may be disconnected from each other but they demonstrate instances of the embedded use of the term in the language and culture. I also disagree with the comments about the "Methods of coercion" section. The Galileo example as well as the "La présentation de la question" reference provide two separate instances where the idea of the torture chamber itself was used for intimidation purposes. Galileo was not threatened with torture. Instead they tried to intimidate him by forcing him to visit the torture chamber. Visiting the torture chamber was one of the torture steps taken in a five stage torture process. It demonstrates the use of the torture chamber as an instrument of torture and not only as a location. The Avignon example demonstrates how acoustic Engineering was used in the construction of the torture chamber. The subsequent example of the furnace design for the burn chamber demonstrates another use of Engineering in the design of the chambers. This example also helps illustrate how the design of the chamber was considered, so that the chamber itself, very much like an implement of torture, could be improved. Unfortunately I have not at the moment found any other examples where architecture or engineering methods have been used to optimise the design of the torture chamber through the centuries, but I am sure they exist. I am not sure why you mention that the Avignon citation is of dubious reliability. As far as the Riquewihr tower and similar examples, I'm sure that these references can be checked and, if needed, improved. As far as the rest of the examples I think that the mention of "torture chamber" and not only "torture" helps establish that the two concepts may be related but not identical and people consciously choose what term they use depending on the concept or idea that they want to promote. Dr.K. logos 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)